Two quotes illustrating negative suburban responses to the idea of the state overriding local zoning

Posted on by

Some suburban officials expressed concern regarding Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s suggestion that the State of Illinois should be able to override local zoning. Two quotes from a news story provide some of the justification for the suburban argument. Here is the first quote:

Photo by Duy Le Duc on Pexels.com

“Zoning is one of the great protectors we have for investment,” he said. “Zoning is not (there) to exclude. Zoning is to protect.”

Suburbanites have invested money into their homes and zoning helps ensure property values increase/do not drop. Suburban residents like single-family homes, in part because of they view them as sources of wealth. They then can see many other land uses near these homes as threats to those values.

The second quote:

“Our local leaders are best positioned to craft solutions tailored to their residents’ needs,” he said.

Suburbanites also like local control. They can create zoning to prompt development that is consistent with what already exists in the community. They can spend local monies on what residents want. They have more control of local spending, rather than letting others further away spend their monies.

At the same time, do the efforts to protect and retain local control mean that suburban communities limit who might live in their community? Zoning for larger lots will tend to drive up housing values. Keeping zoning (and other matters) under local control means local officials can shape local options. If lots of suburban communities follow these logics, this can limit opportunities.

Mapping and regulation needed before self-driving cars can operate in Illinois

Posted on by

Two big steps need to be taken before Waymo can operate autonomous vehicles in Illinois:

Photo by Pew Nguyen on Pexels.com

The self-driving taxi company is deploying about 10 vehicles in Chicago to start mapping the city’s streets — thus “laying the early groundwork” for future operations here — Waymo said Wednesday. 

But for now, the cars will be driven by people. State officials say legislative change is likely needed to give the green light to self-driving cars in Illinois, and Waymo’s Chicago soft launch comes as a battle over the issue is heating up in Springfield…

The mayor’s office confirmed Waymo had notified the city it would be operating here “in order to map streets formations, record geographical data, and better understand driving conditions.” The company assured the city it would not deploy autonomous vehicles in Chicago yet, the mayor’s office said….

Though several legislative attempts last year went nowhere, state lawmakers have filed at least three bills related to autonomous vehicle regulation since January…

I was aware of the need for a regulatory framework. Rules need to be established. Liability needs to be defined. Political negotiations or compromises need to take place. There are regulations from other places can provide direction but there may also be Illinois or Chicago specific concerns.

I was more surprised to hear about the mapping needs. What additional information does Waymo need compared to what is already available? What extra details will be captured? How much information can the mapping gather? How much data does the typical Waymo vehicle have access to while moving around the streets of Chicago?

There are a lot of roadways in Chicago. Driving them all would take less time than running them all. But it will still take some time. Will the mapping be done before the legislative or regulatory activity finishes? Are there multiple waves of data collection?

The article provides no possible dates of when action related to this will finish. Perhaps Chicago will have its driverless cars in a year or a few years. When that happens, it will be with massive amounts of mapping data and clear state (and local?) guidelines.

Limiting through trucks over 5,000 pounds in a residential neighborhood and the weight of passenger vehicles

Posted on by

I regularly drive past a sign at the beginning of a residential neighborhood that says: “Through trucks over 5000 lbs GVW prohibited.”

I would guess the primary purpose of the sign is to limit trucks from cutting through this residential area. A driver might want to avoid a busy intersection about a half mile from this sign and driving through the neighborhood could be a shortcut. Residents do not want to hear trucks, breath their exhaust, or have to maneuver around them while out and about their neighborhood.

At the same time, the vehicle weight might matter as well. Heavier vehicles put more stress on roads. Having heavy trucks regularly travel on a road will damage the surface more quickly. These are residential roads, not heavy-duty roads that handle tens of thousands of vehicles each day. The roads are meant to funnel drivers from single-family homes to the major roadways that can handle more traffic.

It is hard to get an exact figure quickly but there appears to be plenty of passenger vehicles that are over 5,000 pounds. Pickup trucks and large SUVs can exceed this weight regularly. Suburbanites drive plenty of these vehicles. Some of the homeowners in this neighborhood may have them.

So even as this sign likely is trying to keep trucks off neighborhood streets, it also hints at the increasing weight of passenger vehicles sold in the United States. They have gotten heavier over time. All roadways could be strained more, not just because of trucks.

NFL teams leave cities for suburbs in search of more revenue and tax dollars

Posted on by

NFL teams keep their city names and go to the suburbs for more money:

Photo by Chris K on Pexels.com

The Arlington Cowboys. East Rutherford Giants and Jets. Inglewood Rams and Chargers. And maybe the Hammond Bears.

Ten NFL teams don’t play in their namesake cities but in their suburbs. If the Chicago Bears go through with one of their proposals for a new stadium — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker acknowledged Friday that the team’s next home is unlikely to rise within Chicago’s city limits — they could wind up in northwest suburban Arlington Heights or just across the Indiana border in Hammond.

But like other NFL teams, they have trademarked their name and would retain their city identity — along with their Chicago “C” and Bears head logos…

The move outside cities, analysts say, is driven largely by the desire for more money from new stadium revenues on larger, cheaper tracts of land, often closer to many season ticket holders, where teams can build surrounding entertainment districts with restaurants, hotels, retail and housing.

This is a classic suburban story: land outside the city is cheaper so a buyer can get more bang for their buck. This is the story often told about single-family homes: take the same home and lot and see the price to build it and buy it drop as you move out from the city through closer suburbs to outer suburbs.

With so much activity in the suburbs already, it is not like a new stadium is isolated. There are plenty of fans and businesses nearby. Americans are used to suburb-to-suburb commutes. The land that is cheaper in the suburbs can then appreciate in value and provide a big return for the football team.

And if suburban communities are willing to offer big tax breaks, this can generate even more revenue for the football teams. There can be a local or national bidding war where suburbs provide extra incentives beyond having cheaper land compared to cities.

Is there a strong counterargument for a football team to stay in a big city? Should they be loyal to the city? Can there land be even more valuable in the long run because of the demand for land in cities? At the moment, the primary thing cities might offer are big tax breaks.

People might get extra interested in these cases as football teams operate in the public eye and can bring together people across a region. But aren’t the teams just acting like all the other businesses that move locations, including going to the suburbs, so they can make more money?

The problem for places trying to hold off on giving tax breaks to corporations: someone else will make an offer

Posted on by

You are a municipal or state leader who wants to take a stand on not providing tax breaks to corporations regarding land and/or development. You make the case that wealthy firms can pay their own way. You present evidence that tax breaks tend to benefit the companies, not necessarily communities. You say that tax dollars could be used more effectively in other ways.

Photo by http://www.kaboompics.com on Pexels.com

This may be a convincing argument to many. But then something happens. Another community or state offers a lot of taxpayer money. They say they will spend tax money to help a company move. They want that company and will pay the money needed to help make it happen. Can a community afford to lose a major actor? Can a local politician be the one who let them get away?

This could happen for a sports team – see what is going on with the Chicago Bears (even before the latest efforts from Indiana). It could happen with the headquarters of a big company – see the offers made for a second Amazon headquarters. It could happen with warehouse facilities or a shopping mall or a residential development.

Unless every body of government refuses to offer tax breaks, someone might jump in. All the places in a region might not offer a break but then someone across state lines offers money or someone in another region jumps in. There is value for organizations staying in place without tax breaks but it is also hard to do so if someone is offering a lot of money and/or savings to locate elsewhere.

This may indeed be the world we live in. Communities and places compete for jobs, resources, and firms. But hopefully the competition does not leave taxpayers paying for decades for minimal local impacts.

Ratios of religious switching in the United States

Posted on by

I found these two paragraphs in the February 2025 Pew Research Center report “Decline of Christianity in the U.S. Has Slowed, May Have Leveled Off:”

Photo by Adrien Olichon on Pexels.com

Expressed as a ratio, these figures mean that there are six former Christians for every convert to Christianity in the United States. The balance is especially lopsided for Catholicism (which loses 8.4 people through religious switching for every convert to the religion). But Protestants also lose more people than they gain through switching, by a ratio of 1.8 to one.

In stark contrast, the religiously unaffiliated gain nearly six people for every person they lose through religious switching. That is, there are about six times as many Americans who say they were raised in a religion and no longer identify with a religion than there are who say they were raised in no religion but now identify with one.

This is an interesting way to consider the data. Rather than focus on absolute numbers or percentages, the ratios compare those who join a religious tradition versus those who leave. Additionally, because some American religious groups see evangelism and/or conversions as part an important part of their mission, this helps highlight whether more people are coming to the Christian faith or not. (Keep in mind that this applies to the 35% of American adults who have switched religion between

The ratios suggest this is a one-sided affair. Of those who switch, more leave Christianity compared to those who join. And more switchers are becoming religiously unaffiliated compared to the religious unaffiliated joining a religious tradition.

What does this mean for the efforts of religious groups? Is this more about a powerful pattern of more people becoming religiously unaffiliated or the limited effectiveness of religious groups to gain converts?

IL governor’s push to have statewide residential zoning

Posted on by

In his State of the State address, Governor JB Pritzker said he supports statewide zoning changes to promote more housing:

Photo by u0414u0438u0430u043du0430 u0414u0443u043du0430u0435u0432u0430 on Pexels.com

Gov. JB Pritzker will propose a statewide zoning law in his State of the State address on Wednesday, drastically limiting the authority local governments have to control what types of housing structures can be built on land that’s zoned residential…

A study published last year by the University of Illinois found that the state is about 142,000 units of housing short and would need to build 227,000 over the next five years to keep up with demand. That equals about 45,000 new homes a year — nearly double the five-year average of about 19,000 built annually between 2019 and 2024…

Pritzker’s office says the plan includes a tiered framework to permit multi-unit housing by right in all but the smallest lots zoned for residential use. Local zoning boards would no longer be allowed to prohibit property owners from building multi-unit housing on residential lots exceeding 2,500 square feet…06

More straightforward, accessory dwelling units — attached or detached secondary residences such as granny flats, backyard cottages and above-garage apartments — would be legalized on all properties zoned for residential use. The city of Chicago moved last year to relax its 60-year ban on granny flats. And legislation was filed in Springfield last year to ban local governments from prohibiting the units. But it has not moved.

Three thoughts in response to this proposal:

  1. One feature Americans tend to like about suburbs and local governments is that they have control over land use decisions, not people located elsewhere. This means residents have more direct say about who might be there neighbor or what might be located next door. In roughly the last one hundred years, zoning in suburbs is then used to protect single-family homes and their values. Messing with this established use is not easy; as the article briefly notes: “the effort is likely to be met with stiff pushback.”
  2. Illinois is not the first state to pursue this so there are other models to look at and see whether similar legislation has had positive effects. This has primarily occurred in blue states with more expensive housing markets than Illinois.
  3. It will be interesting to see how different parts or communities in Illinois respond to this. The Chicago area housing market is different than downstate. How will wealthier suburban communities react? Which communities are most eager to construct affordable or missing-middle housing? Where would developers and builders want to construct housing if these statewide guidelines are passed?

What I learned working for a Christian college radio station #1: speaking into a microphone in an empty room

Posted on by

I worked at WETN 88.1 FM, Wheaton College’s radio station, for all four years as an undergraduate and for several years later as a faculty member. This is the start to a non-consecutive series of posts regarding the valuable lessons I learned while doing this. #1:

You are alone in a radio studio. You sit down in front of the mixing board and computer display. Various audio equipment surrounds you. You put on headphones, press a button to turn on the microphone, push the fader up, and start speaking.

This is a common occurrence in a radio studio but it is an odd situation compared to most of life. Typically when you start talking there is a visible audience. You are talking to a friend or a family member or to a coworker. They can see you and you can see them.

One of the first things I learned as a first-year student in college at the college radio station was to talk into a microphone with an audience in mind but no one in front of you. No immediate reactions from people or a visible audience. You can hear yourself in your headphones but that is about it. You just have to keep going until your segment is over.

What does one say in such a situation? Can you carry on a conversation with yourself? Can you imagine who might be listening? It took time to feel comfortable doing this, to have a sense of what you could feel comfortable saying and how long it might take. Even if many people have experiences talking to themselves in their heads or out loud, it is a different experience doing it into a microphone for public consumption.

And it is a skill that I think has served me well. In comparison, such an experience makes talking in front of people look more attractive. They react. They are not imaginary. You get quick feedback regarding how what you are saying is landing. There might be opportunities for dialogue. If you can keep a conversation going with yourself, having material to work with in conversation often provides better opportunities.

I do not know how many hours I ended up talking by myself into a microphone. I did spend a lot of solo time in a basement on-air studio or recording for on-air and creating ads and promos in a recording studio. The on-air studio had a few methods for interacting with the outside world – a phone line that could also be placed on-air, the computer (AOL Instant Messenger and email in my early days), and the campus “Blanchard Cam” that showed outside conditions in front of our main building. A lot of time to figure out how to be comfortable with that microphone.

I also had enjoyable radio experiences with conversation partners. I co-hosted a talk show one academic year and we regularly invited guests for conversation. I read news on our morning show and had more off-the-cuff interactions with multiple hosts. I did play-by-play of football and soccer games with partners. Radio was not only a solitary experience but learning to talk alone was critical to the experience and for other areas of life.

Religion and a California suburb that is a “blue zone”

Posted on by

Loma Linda, California was designated as a “blue zone,” a place where people tend to live longer. This designation is connected to the religious history of some of the residents:

Photo by Juan Pablo Daniel on Pexels.com

In 2008, Loma Linda rocketed to the national stage when it was dubbed a “Blue Zone,” the term coined by author Dan Buettner to describe a place where people not only live longer but also live healthier lives. Nearly 20 years later, the California town of around 25,000 people still stands out rather oddly in its peer group, which includes beautiful international destinations like Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica; and Ikaria, Greece. All of them are set against mountains or sea, with residents who live a more traditional lifestyle…

The Blue Zone designation actually makes him a bit nervous, he said, and he doesn’t tout it often, since the data that the designation was based on is now rather old and was based solely on the Seventh-day Adventist part of the community. He said it’s been brought up among city officials as a way to promote the city, but members are often divided. 

Even Dr. Gary Fraser, whose research was the base for much of the Blue Zone status designation, told SFGATE that “the Loma Linda experience is totally irrelevant.” The research done was important, and the designation is significant, he said, but the overall study of longer living is more complicated and technical than it’s often presented, and it has more to do with Adventists than Loma Linda.

He said that when he began his research more than 40 years ago, it was helpful to be able to study Adventists because it helped level the playing field. Since most don’t smoke or drink and participate in similar, healthier lifestyle activities, researchers could analyze their diets more effectively and understand how that affected longevity. Fraser said, if anything, it points to the importance of studying how people eat, something he’s continuing to do today.

Another possible way to frame this story: American suburbs are often assumed to be similar. They are based around single-family homes, driving, and a particular lifestyle.

But leaders and residents within a community can often describe what makes their suburb different from other suburbs. We have this particular trait. There is this historical event that shapes who we are today. We are different from neighboring suburbs because of this.

The particular difference here is having a designation as a “blue zone.” And this seems related to a particular religious group in the community, Seventh-day Adventists. There is a Seventh-day Adventist university in the community that describes itself as having an emphasis on “health, science, and faith.” Not every suburb would have a concentration of this particular group that is a smaller conservative Protestant denomination.

So what helps distinguish Loma Linda from other suburbs near Riverside and Los Angeles? A concentration of particular Christians that is linked to longer life expectancy.

Which American communities will give up local services in order to not have any property taxes?

Posted on by

As multiple states consider having no property taxes, what happens to the local services that property taxes fund? This could include local schools and local services. Many communities value their local services, whether the residents themselves make use of them and/or because they help contribute to local property values.

Photo by Caleb Oquendo on Pexels.com

So if there is less funding for local services (this assumes county or state funds might not make up the loss of property tax revenues), which ones would people be willing to forgo? Some possibilities:

-Local schools. Lots of complaints about how much schools cost, particularly labor costs. And people who do not have kids in the schools might want to pay less for schools. (Counterargument: the quality of schools helps boost the status of communities and is related to property values.)

-Local police/fire. Do we need this much local coverage?

-The number of local government employees/functions. Are they all needed?

-Thinking about these last two: why not consolidate police or roads or other local services with other communities or within an entire county? (Counterargument: individual communities then have less say over how much the local services interact with their residents.)

I suspect that places that eliminate property taxes may then have some interesting discussions about how to make sure the services that property taxes helped fund continue. How many residents will actually accept a decrease in local services and amenities?